The vision of the execwork branch was to maintain a development branchand then merge to master once we were happy with the quality and unittest completeness of the execwork stuff. However, it now appears thateveryone is working in the execwork branch. Additionally, I've alsohad a number of offhand comments from those less familiar with theproject who assume that a lack of commits on master means the projectis less active than it is. As such, I propose that we merge theexecwork branch back into master and continue to do our work there.With the lastest push of Ben's patches for ValueVectors and the mergeof DRILL-140 into execwork, execwork includes all the changes inmaster and all tests pass.

> The vision of the execwork branch was to maintain a development branch> and then merge to master once we were happy with the quality and unit> test completeness of the execwork stuff. However, it now appears that> everyone is working in the execwork branch. Additionally, I've also> had a number of offhand comments from those less familiar with the> project who assume that a lack of commits on master means the project> is less active than it is. As such, I propose that we merge the> execwork branch back into master and continue to do our work there.> With the lastest push of Ben's patches for ValueVectors and the merge> of DRILL-140 into execwork, execwork includes all the changes in> master and all tests pass.>> Jacques>

> +1>> With git, working on a private copy of trunk is equivalent of the old style> working on a branch.>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>> > The vision of the execwork branch was to maintain a development branch> > and then merge to master once we were happy with the quality and unit> > test completeness of the execwork stuff. However, it now appears that> > everyone is working in the execwork branch. Additionally, I've also> > had a number of offhand comments from those less familiar with the> > project who assume that a lack of commits on master means the project> > is less active than it is. As such, I propose that we merge the> > execwork branch back into master and continue to do our work there.> > With the lastest push of Ben's patches for ValueVectors and the merge> > of DRILL-140 into execwork, execwork includes all the changes in> > master and all tests pass.> >> > Jacques> >>

> The vision of the execwork branch was to maintain a development branch> and then merge to master once we were happy with the quality and unit> test completeness of the execwork stuff. However, it now appears that> everyone is working in the execwork branch. Additionally, I've also> had a number of offhand comments from those less familiar with the> project who assume that a lack of commits on master means the project> is less active than it is. As such, I propose that we merge the> execwork branch back into master and continue to do our work there.> With the lastest push of Ben's patches for ValueVectors and the merge> of DRILL-140 into execwork, execwork includes all the changes in> master and all tests pass.>> Jacques>

> +1...this will be very useful for fresh starters!> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> The vision of the execwork branch was to maintain a development branch>> and then merge to master once we were happy with the quality and unit>> test completeness of the execwork stuff. However, it now appears that>> everyone is working in the execwork branch. Additionally, I've also>> had a number of offhand comments from those less familiar with the>> project who assume that a lack of commits on master means the project>> is less active than it is. As such, I propose that we merge the>> execwork branch back into master and continue to do our work there.>> With the lastest push of Ben's patches for ValueVectors and the merge>> of DRILL-140 into execwork, execwork includes all the changes in>> master and all tests pass.>> >> Jacques>>

Based on this feedback, I've now merged execwork and master so are thesame. I also tagged the pre-merge changeset for later reference.Please rebase your changes against master and continue your futuredevelopment and patch work there.

Thanks,JacquesOn Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Michael Hausenblas<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> +1 from my side as well, but we really need to document this clearly and nicely on the Wiki, in big red <blink> letters ;)>> Cheers,> Michael>> --> Michael Hausenblas> Ireland, Europe> http://mhausenblas.info/>> On 16 Jul 2013, at 09:17, Srihari Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>> +1...this will be very useful for fresh starters!>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>>> The vision of the execwork branch was to maintain a development branch>>> and then merge to master once we were happy with the quality and unit>>> test completeness of the execwork stuff. However, it now appears that>>> everyone is working in the execwork branch. Additionally, I've also>>> had a number of offhand comments from those less familiar with the>>> project who assume that a lack of commits on master means the project>>> is less active than it is. As such, I propose that we merge the>>> execwork branch back into master and continue to do our work there.>>> With the lastest push of Ben's patches for ValueVectors and the merge>>> of DRILL-140 into execwork, execwork includes all the changes in>>> master and all tests pass.>>>>>> Jacques>>>>

> Based on this feedback, I've now merged execwork and master so are the> same. I also tagged the pre-merge changeset for later reference.> Please rebase your changes against master and continue your future> development and patch work there.>> For those that haven't tried it out yet, check out FishEye, nice> ability to review the source tree.> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/changelog/incubator-drill>> Thanks,> Jacques>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Michael Hausenblas> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > +1 from my side as well, but we really need to document this clearly and> nicely on the Wiki, in big red <blink> letters ;)> >> > Cheers,> > Michael> >> > --> > Michael Hausenblas> > Ireland, Europe> > http://mhausenblas.info/> >> > On 16 Jul 2013, at 09:17, Srihari Srinivasan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:> >> >> +1...this will be very useful for fresh starters!> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:> >>> >>> The vision of the execwork branch was to maintain a development branch> >>> and then merge to master once we were happy with the quality and unit> >>> test completeness of the execwork stuff. However, it now appears that> >>> everyone is working in the execwork branch. Additionally, I've also> >>> had a number of offhand comments from those less familiar with the> >>> project who assume that a lack of commits on master means the project> >>> is less active than it is. As such, I propose that we merge the> >>> execwork branch back into master and continue to do our work there.> >>> With the lastest push of Ben's patches for ValueVectors and the merge> >>> of DRILL-140 into execwork, execwork includes all the changes in> >>> master and all tests pass.> >>>> >>> Jacques> >>>> >>